So, if an economic actor, although covered by the Directive's scope, lodges an application against the Commission's decision, the Court will simply reject its application. In other words, the Court accepts only the Member States' appeal.36 This observation raises a new question: What can operators do if
30 Court of First Instance, 25 June 2007, Case T-130/06 - Drax Power e.a./ Commission - §60.
31 Court of First Instance, 25 June 2007, Case T-130/06 - Drax Power e.a./ Commission - §61.
32 Court of First Instance, 25 June 2007, Case T-130/06 - Drax Power e.a./ Commission - § 68.
34 There are two decisions about the US Steel Kosice case, one for the '1st phase' Commission rejection decision (Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 - U.S. Steel Kosice v. Commission - Case T-489/04, application. (O.J. C 297 of 08.12.2007; application in O.J. C 82 of 2.4.2005.), and another against the Commission rejection decision for the period from 2008 to 2012 (Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007, Case T-27/07 - U.S. Steel Kosice v. Commission (O.J. C 297 of 08.12.2007; application in OJ C 69, 24.3.2007). See section 8 of the contribution.
35 E.C.J., 8 April 2008, Case C-503/07 P - Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission des Communautés européennes.
36 See also Court of First Instance, 6 November 2007, Case T-13/07 - Cemex UK Cement Ltd v. Commission.
their nationals' authorities refuse to appeal? That specific case-law is well known in the European Law. The Court created it in the Plaumann case.37 The position of the judges was always very restrictive.38 Many authors criticized the Court's position, specifically under the conformity of those limitations with Article 6, §1, and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.39 A democratic argument was also made. After all, specifically in the environmental matter, are not the physical persons and the companies the first to be concerned by those measures? Even the case-law of the Court was used by the doctrinal authors to criticize that restrictive interpretation.40 In Les Verts case, the Court underlined the necessity that 'the Treaty established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to permit the Court of Justice to review the legality of measures adopted by the institutions'.41 We can admit that the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance could not receive and appreciate every single application made by every single company or by a physical person. There is also a well known possibility for judicial abuse by the plaintiffs. However, for us, the 'individually concerned' case-law, which refuses the companies (and the physical persons) the right to access to a Court, can be criticized. We have some doubts about the possible interest of a State in putting an appeal before the Court in the name of the companies located in it.
Was this article helpful?